Homami v. Iranzadi
|Homami v. Iranzadi|
|Court||California Court of Appeal|
|Citation||Homami v. Iranzadi|
|Date decided||June 26, 1989|
- Mr. Homami = "Homami" = plaintiff = lender
- Mr. Iranzadi = "Iranzadi" = defendant = borrower
- Homami & Iranzadi are brothers-in-law
- Homami lent Iranzadi $250,000 to pay for a real estate transaction involving 2 properties.
- The promissory notes stated that the loans didn't bear interest.
- Iranzadi made payments of about $40,000/month.
- Next, the 2 parties modified the promissory notes to accelerate the due date of the entire loans to the upcoming September.
- The loans modification stipulated that after June 22, 1985, interest would be charged on the loans at a rate of 18%/year.
- All of a suddenly, Iranzadi stopped making payments.
The 2 properties of Iranzadi went into foreclosure because Homami filed notices of default.
- Iranzadi sold 1 property & paid back $125,000.
- Iranzadi, however, didn't pay back the full $125,000 after selling the 2nd property.
- Therefore, Homami didn't receive back the full $250,000 he had lent--let alone any interest.
Homami sued for breach of contract.
At trial, Homami told the court that the 2 parties had agreed to not report the interest payments in the modified contract to avoid paying taxes.Homamai won in the California trial court.
Courts won't help when
- un-licensed professionals or contractors sue customers for non-payments
- recovery of money is from illegal gambling
- contracts that break or avoid federal law